Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> writes:
> I agree that this position --- and similar ones --- were voiced by
> several people. However, for the sake of completeness, it should be
> pointed out that:
>
> 1) None of the proponents of this position came up with a good
> definition of "software" vs. "documentation". (Personally,
> I think it may be doable for many cases, but there will be
> many other things which defy classification.)
No such definition is required. We could decide on a case-by-case
basis, if only the decision process were more transparent. Most
decisions are actually no-brainers. If there's a ambiguity of
practical relevance, we could demand that the license must so
permissive that it qualifies as free under all of our guidelines.
However, I still hope to stumble across a proper criterion to tell
Programs from Documentation.
> 2) None of the proponents of this position came up with good
> reasons why the freedoms we consider so important for software
> don't apply to documentation.
Well, there are many reasons, but you probably won't consider them
good enough. Personally, I'm much in favor of the concept of moral
rights, and think that they still have a place in a free software
environment.
> 3) None of the proponents of this position came up with a list
> of what should be changed in the DFSG to get the Debian Free
> Documentation Guidelines, nor did they even begin to write
> the DFDG.
Debian has recently decided that no DFDG are needed, and despite all
the talk about this decision, nobody actually wants to reverse it.
> And, most importantly, that the above three aren't on-topic here;
> rather, they belong on -project or (in the event of a proposal) -vote.
Discussions on Debian's GFDL policy traditionally take place on this
list. I don't see any reason to break with it.
--
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com,
netscape.net, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.